I won't put all of my eggs in one basket. It's a matter of personal/family/community safety. Musk will not be with us forever. How will these systems work, and who will control them, when he's gone? If “what's past is prologue,” then it is not promising. Google was very convenient when it first arrived. It began as a tool to organize the world's information democratically but evolved into a surveillance giant, dominating 90%+ of global search and online ads, tracking users invasively, biasing algorithms that amplify misinformation or discrimination, building biased AI impacting marginalized groups, and partnering with governments on surveillance. Facebook used to be a great place to collaborate with people, but became a data-hoarding behemoth, enabling misinformation, election interference (e.g., Cambridge Analytica scandal), and hate speech amplification. It controls global discourse via platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp, often refusing to fact-check political ads or curb addictive algorithms. Critics point to loose data practices fueling surveillance capitalism, complicity in genocides (e.g., Myanmar), and prioritizing growth over user safety, leading to privacy erosions and mental health issues. Amazon evolved from convenient shopping to a sprawling empire in e-commerce, cloud (AWS), streaming, and surveillance (e.g., Ring cameras shared with police). Accused of crushing local businesses, exploiting warehouse workers with grueling conditions and anti-union tactics, evading taxes, and enabling counterfeit/dangerous products. Its AWS powers much of the internet but also supports military/intelligence ops with poor human rights oversight, contributing to environmental harm via massive shipping emissions. Apple began challenging “Big Brother” (famous 1984 ad) but now enforces a “walled garden” ecosystem via iOS, taking hefty App Store cuts (up to 30%) and fighting right-to-repair laws. It complies with CCP censorship to maintain supply chains (e.g., removing apps aiding Hong Kong protests), exploits overseas labor, and pays minimal taxes despite trillions in value. While strong on device privacy, it aids oppressive regimes indirectly through manufacturing dependencies. Microsoft started empowering users with tools like Windows but faced 1990s antitrust suits for monopolistic practices. Today, it's criticized for AI collaborations with the Chinese military on facial recognition, creating public databases enabling surveillance, and acquisitions (e.g., LinkedIn, GitHub) that expand data collection. It builds on “surveillance capitalism” models, similar to Google, and has been involved in military tech like HoloLens for the U.S. Army. History shows that even the most promising tech platforms—once they achieve dominance—tend to prioritize scale, profit, and control over the original ideals of openness, user empowerment, and democratic access. Putting one's entire digital, financial, and personal life under the roof of any single entity (no matter how innovative or charismatic its leader) creates a single point of failure: not just technical, but ethical, political, and existential. Musk's companies, like any centralized powerhouse, are vulnerable to the same trajectory. His eventual departure—whether through retirement, succession challenges, or other events—could shift priorities, invite new leadership missteps, or expose users to the same risks of data exploitation, policy reversals, or external pressures that we've seen elsewhere. The pattern is clear: convenience today often becomes oppression tomorrow. Thus, diversification isn't just prudent—it's essential for long-term safety and autonomy. In an era where power concentrates quickly, the real safeguard isn't finding the “perfect” company—it's building resilience through choice, awareness, and deliberate fragmentation of dependence. HARD PASS.